Archive for the Red Scare Category

How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents [ / Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade]

Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Anti-communism, CIA, Connection to drugs and narcotics, Corporate Media Critique, DPR Korea, Historical myths of the US, Iraq, Korean War, Libya, Media cover-up, Media smear campaign, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Red Scare, Somalia, south Korea, south Korean human rights hypocrisy, Spain, Syria, US "War on Terror", US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR, Vietnam, World War II, Yugoslavia - former FRY on January 17, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

by Richard Sanders

January 5, 2012

The following article by Richard Sanders published in May 2002, prior to the onslaught of the Iraq war, carefully documents the History of War Pretext Incidents.

This historical review raises an important issue: Is the Pentagon seeking to trigger military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?

As documented by Richard Sanders, this strategy has been used throughout American military history.

With regard to the confrontation in the Persian Gulf, is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain with a view to triggering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense.

Those opposed to war must address the issue of the “pretext”and “justification” to wage war.

Of relevance, the “Responsibility to Protect under a NATO “humanitarian” mandate has also been used as a thematic pretext to wage war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria),

The 911 Attacks and the “Global War on Terrorism” (Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan,…) not to mention the alleged “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (Iraq) have also been used to justify military intervention. Both 9/11 and WMD are being heralded as a justification for waging war on Iran, based on allegation that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks and that Iran possesses nuclear weapons.

In the words of Richard Sanders [2002]:

“It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt [9/11] to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can unmask its pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote skepticism about the government and media yarns that have been spun to encourage this war.

The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our society’s susceptibility to “war fever.” ”

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 9, 2012

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion. Canto vi. Stanza 17

Pretext n. [Latin praetextum, pp. of praetextere, to weave before, pretend, disguise; prae-, before + texere, to weave], a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one; excuse.

Stratagem [Gr. Strategema, device or act of a general; stratos, army + agein, to lead], a trick, scheme or device used for deceiving an enemy in war.

Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major first step in constructing public support for such deadly ventures. Perhaps the most common pretext for war is an apparently unprovoked enemy attack. Such attacks, however, are often fabricated, incited or deliberately allowed to occur. They are then exploited to arouse widespread public sympathy for the victims, demonize the attackers and build mass support for military “retaliation.”

Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a schoolyard beating or a genocidal war.

Such trickery has probably been employed by every military power throughout history. During the Roman empire, the causes of war — cassus belli — were often invented to conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent.

Pretext incidents, in themselves, are not sufficient to spark wars. Rumors and allegations about the tragic events must first spread throughout the target population. Constant repetition of the official version of what happened, spawns dramatic narratives that are lodged into public consciousness. The stories become accepted without question and legends are fostered. The corporate media is central to the success of such ‘psychological operations.’ Politicians rally people around the flag, lending their special oratory skills to the call for a military “response.” Demands for “retaliation” then ring out across the land, war hysteria mounts and, finally, a war is born.

Every time the US has gone to war, pretext incidents have been used . Upon later examination, the conventional perception of these events is always challenged and eventually exposed as untrue. Historians, investigative journalists and many others, have cited eyewitness accounts, declassified documents and statements made by the perpetrators themselves to demonstrate that the provocative incidents were used as stratagems to stage-manage the march to war.

Here are a few particularly blatant examples of this phenomenon.

[Every war in the following list is thoroughly analyzed by CONTEXT, PRETEXT, RESPONSE, and REAL REASONS; and can be referenced at the original article (see bottom of post for link) – Zuo Shou]

1846: The Mexican-American War…

1898: The Spanish-American War…

1915: World War I…

1941: World War II…

1950: The Korean War…

1964: The Vietnam War…

1983: The Invasion of Grenada…

1989: The Invasion of Panama…


There are dozens of other examples from US history besides those summarized here. The “Cold War” was characterized by dozens of covert and overt wars throughout the Third World. Although each had its specific pretexts, the eradication of communism was the generally-used backdrop for all rationales.100

Since the Soviet Union’s demise, US war planners have continued to use spectacular pretext incidents to spawn wars. Examples include Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Yugoslavia (1999).

Throughout this time, the US “War on Drugs” has been fought on many fronts. Lurking behind the excuse to squash illicit drug trafficking, are the actual reasons for financing, training and arming right-wing, US-backed regimes, whose officials have so often profited from this illegal trade. The CIA has used this trade to finance many of its covert wars.101 The “War on Drugs” has targeted numerous countries to strengthen counter-insurgency operations aimed at destroying opposition groups that oppose US corporate rule.

Military plotters know that the majority would never support their wars, if it were generally known why they were really being fought. Over the millennia, a special martial art has been deliberately developed to weave elaborate webs of deceit to create the appearance that wars are fought for “just” or “humanitarian” reasons.

If asked to support a war so a small, wealthy elite could shamelessly profit by ruthlessly exploiting and plundering the natural and human resources in far away lands, people would ‘just say no.’

We now face another broad thematic pretext for war, the so-called “War Against Terrorism.” We are told it will be waged in many countries and may continue for generations. It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can unmask its pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote skepticism about the government and media yarns that have been spun to encourage this war.

The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our society’s susceptibility to “war fever.”

Excerpted by Zuo Shou

Article link:


The US is a Police State – Review of Andrew Kolin’s “State Power and Democracy” []

Posted in "War on Drugs" pretext, 9/11, Anti-communism, Anti-Islam hysteria, Bill Clinton, CIA, Corporate Media Critique, Genocide, George W. Bush, Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, Iraq, Islamophobia, Libya, Obama, Police brutality, Police State, Red Scare, Sanctions as weapon of war, US "War on Terror", US imperialism, USA, Wall Street, Western nations' human rights distortions, Yugoslavia - former FRY on November 21, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

by Prof. John McMurtry

Nov. 9, 2011

* Excerpted *

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article by Professor McMurtry had been commissioned by an academic journal called New Politics.

Upon receiving Professor McMurtry’s text, the editorial board decided to reject it: “We are sorry to inform you that the Editorial Board finds it inappropriate”.

Review of Andrew Kolin[‘s] State Power and Democracy (2011), New York: St. Martin’s Press/Palgrave Macmillan, 248 pp.

Many readers may have thought the U.S. is “like a police state” – – think of the security dress down of everyone boarding a flight within the U.S. sphere of control. Political scientist Andrew Kolin goes far beyond hasty analogue. He argues with rich factual substantiation that the U.S is a police state all the way down – not only since the stolen elections and war state of George Bush Jr., but before and since in a cumulative throughline of bureaucratized despotism across borders.

Documented examples are reported in detail from 1950 on to disclose a record that is as systematic in suppressing public dissent as its client dictatorships elsewhere – albeit far more successfully kept out of public and scholarly attention. Since the electoral contests of, by and for the rich in America are proclaimed as “the leader of the Free World” in the ad-vehicle media many still watch and read, an example helps to clarify the reality not reported. When three nuns protested before the war-criminal bombing of Iraq in 2002 where no war crime was left undone, “they were arrested, handcuffed, left on the ground for three hours and then jailed for seven months before trial – – [for] sabotage and obstruction of justice” (p. 153).

Every step of their police repression was within the laws that had been concocted before and after 9-11, in particular by the provisions of “the Patriot Act” – with here as elsewhere the legislative title as integral to the Orwellian language of rule. The symbolic action of the nuns – painting blood on a missile silo – was in fact backed by international law against the “supreme crime” of non-defensive armed invasion of another country. Indeed their protest occurred just before the saturation bombing of civilian Baghdad which ended in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. But mass-murderous facts, citizen responsibility, moral courage and peaceful expression of the law of nations do not detain U.S. legal machinery. It is this legal machinery that Kolin focuses on to make his case that the U.S. is a police state.

What is a police state? Kolin states no criterion, but it can be deduced as unlimited state power of armed force freely discharged without citizen right to stop it. Anyone who has lived in the U.S. or its client dictatorships may recognize the concrete phenomena, but what is featured in this account are the laws and directives which empower the police state norms. While the men at the top always proclaim their devotion to the defence of freedom as armed force assaults on domestic dissent and dissident countries increase, none have been found guilty of breaking the law or repressing freedom of speech or assembly. It is U.S. laws and policies which form the U.S. police state, the argument is, and they are continuously made to enable an endless litany of crimes against human life.

The sustaining concern of this work, however, is not to define ordering principles, but to track the bureaucratic trails of legally terrorist offices, directives, and channels. The result is a detailed history of the inner workings of the U.S. state which exposes the legal suppression of democratic speech and action (omitting the use of laws against harmless non-pharmaceuticals as lettres de cachet to imprison the poor and the rebellious by the millions). Beneath continuous corporate-state and media proclamation of America’s freedoms and simultaneous academic fear to expose the lines of despotism, this work largely succeeds in providing the procedural workings of the U.S. police state building both before, and dramatically after, the turning point of 9-11.

The manufacture of pretext imprinted in the very timing and naming of the high-tech destruction of the World Trade Center as “9-11”, and the fact that the Bush Jr. presidency needed a war or two to distract from its illegitimacy and to empower its program of “full spectrum dominance” are not, however, raised in this book. They remain unspeakable facts within the official conspiracy theory now normalized as fact. Yet this canonical theory of the 9-11 tragedy assumes the collapse of the fireproof steel-cored buildings into their footsteps near the the speed of gravity – an impossibility within the laws of physics – and the first legal question of any homicidal crime – cui bono, who benefits? – is erased from its record. So although this official story allowed all the post-9-11 police state legislation and unlimited powers Kolin focuses on, he avoids the pretext itself.

Critical attention is instead confined to the silencing of questions, alternatives and dissent by the legal machinery of repression justified by it. Such “institutional analysis” is favoured by America’s lead critics, and positivist social science rules out what is not so corroborated. The clear exception to this methodological silencing here is attachment of the descriptor “police state” to the U.S., and the legally well informed record of demonstration. The maze-like bureaucratization of operations of repression is not ultimately covert, Kolin shows, but sanctified by official policies and laws.

Kolin’s attention to dated laws, directives, offices, and machinations behind the spotlight and personalization of politics is a welcome re-grounding amidst the daily media kaleidoscope of ever-changing images and personalities. In contrast to the usual academic fear of ideological non-conformity, Kolin clearly summarizes at the outset: “In the latter part of the twentieth century, when mass movements for all intents and purposes were eliminated, what remained was for the most part was procedural democracy, which in a short period, would also be eliminated, to be replaced by a form of absolute power in which government had been made into a permanent police state. Much of this took place after the attacks of 9-11, during which the administration of George Bush in a very short time, was able to put in place many of the essential features of what is now an American police state” (p.2).

* U.S. Police State in Formation from the Revolution through Reagan to Bush-Obama *

Kolin goes back to the U.S. state’s foundation to find the dictatorial impulse. “The truth of the matter”, he says, “is that after the American Revolution there was thinking among economic and democratic elites that America had become too democratic, especially as mass democracy was expressing itself on the state level”(p. 3) – a view better known since a Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission Report made it famous centuries later. The Founding Fathers’ anti-democratic politics have been explored before by Michael Parenti, who blurbs for the book. For Kolin, it is “mass democracy” that frightens the dominant ownership class from the start because it threatens their ruling proprietary control. But this economic diagnosis is not pursued by Kolin . He conceives the motor force as “control over people and territory by the state in itself. This non-Marxian thesis is historically associated with theoretical anarchism, but is here conjoined to the idea of “mass democracy”, a motivating idea behind this work which is not given further definition…

…Desires of popular masses can be as overwhelmingly compelled to control people’s thought, action and dissent by force as state elites are, and they can be as driven to seize the territories of other people and to lord it over them via great majorities – as in the popular witch-hunts through American history and as, more broadly, age-old ethnic warfare and killing and enslavement of losing societies. Something deeper than the will of the demos to which it is accountable is required – rules to live by which protect and enable life itself. This may be the most fundamental gap in democratic [sic] theory.

* Annihilating Not Only Democracy, But Countless Lives and Life Supports *

For perhaps the majority in the U.S., loathing of government is a national pastime except for “our men in uniform” – that is, arms-laden American enforcers chasing, shooting and bombing designated enemies of America at home and abroad. Wars seem in fact very popular with the majority if they are not being lost, and public pillories and prisons for deviators from the American Way seldom lack similar support. Police state laws, the invasion of Iraq and so on seem to have been popular if they are successful. Yet Kolin’s work is more concerned to expose the state which is represented as the world leader in democracy while it rules by armed force, secrecy and terror and – especially since 9-11 – violently suppresses dissent in its own society. The inside mechanisms of legalist-bureaucratic rule not discussed or connected in the dominant media or political science are uniquely laid bare. There were many designated “enemies” from the beginning – from American Indians and genocidal laws against them to the FBI, Sedition, Alien and Espionage Acts of 1917-18, the CIA founding in 1947, followed by the Internal Security Act of 1950, McCarthy’s House UnAmerican Activities Committee from 1957, and the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts of today. All of these legal mechanisms, he shows, have been structured to silence alternative thoughts and voices in the public sphere. When to be merely unAmerican brings life ruin to U.S. citizens and designation as “the enemy” can justify the saturation bombing of weaker societies, the derangement becomes clear amidst a sustained train of such abuses over generations.

When these systematic attacks simultaneously annihilate life-serving advocacy and institutions at home and elsewhere, a more sinister and unidentified pattern emerges. Not only non-conforming speech and thought are repressed, but standing up for other people’s lives and life means becomes criminalized. An invisible war is waged on social conscience and defence of life itself. Indeed this is the unrecognized selector of what the U.S. police state invariably attacks inside and outside its borders – social movements and orders to enable the lives of citizens opposed to transnational private money sequencing to more. Consider here for immediate example what the police protected in New York in the Wall Street protests until world attention no longer allowed the savage beating to continue with the dominant media cheering it on. Government armed force did not protect the lives of citizens or their cause of life justice or real market businesses on the street. Armed protective attention was directed instead to Wall Street operations by barricades, long swinging truncheons, continuous special vehicles of service to the money-men, and moving lines of trap and assault of the citizens standing for “the 99%”. In the wider world, the seven-month U.S.-NATO bombing of Libya– not to defend citizens as pretended, but to bomb main cities and government capacities, seize control of the country’s wealthy financial assets and sub-soil oil fields – went on with hardly a voice of dissent. That it destroyed Libya’s social state of free healthcare, higher education and guaranteed subsistence in food, housing and fuel was never reported even by public broadcasters.

The U.S. state is in these ways structured not only towards total force and control. It is, more deeply, programmed to liquidate what serves the lives of people so as to grow transnational corporate profit for the few. Always however, there is a pretext of a demonic enemy that people are being protected from – “communism”, “subversives”, “Islamic militants”, “terrorists”, “violence-threatening protestors”, all with no criteria. Most warred upon by the U.S. state are societies’ social life support systems – including public water, electricity, health and living subsidies. Consider here the bombed former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya – not to mention trillions of dollars of defunding of U.S. social security itself to pay for private bank bailouts by public dollars. This is the deeper shadow side of the U.S. state and its global allies…

…Command over ever more external territory and peoples is always the direction. Permanent war is the omnibus vehicle of its advance, and mass mind control including by torture is a standard method, along now with serial murders across borders by drones. While seldom penetrating these generic principles of the global police state, Kolin follows the specifica of the inside workings of the legal-bureaucratic machine through many phases, acronyms and abhorrence of real democracy built into policies and laws. One better knows why the U.S. becomes a failed state when one sees the absolutist overriding of every attempt to bring it back into line with life-respecting values during the last half century. The Fulbright and Church Committees, the mass progressive movements of the 1960’s and 70’s, all come to nought until post-9-11 laws, terror and surveillance make the police state a formal affair, and what is not mentioned here, Congress increasingly degenerates into the best frontmen the banking, oil, weapons, med-insurance and pharma corporations can buy. The apogee of police state method follows – military tribunals in place of due process to deal with endless arrests for an open-ended charge of terrorism against people in their own countries, systematic rendition and torture against international laws, abolition of habeus corpus and all procedures protecting against false charge, simultaneous denial of legal standing as prisoners of war, and evidence kept secret without possibility of disproof. The legal limbo of the Guatanomo prison has helped to permit evasion of any accountability to the rule of law. After promising to eliminate it, President Obama did not.

If one ignores the blinkering out of the private transnational corporate-financial system behind ever more people and territory for natural resource, market, labor, and strategic exploitation without limit, the book is a treasure-trove of the U.S. state-machinery for undemocratic world rule. The despotic compulsion to intimidate, control and terrorize innocent and conscientious citizens across the world including within the U.S. is hard to deny in face of such organized evidence. Just about every horror story one has heard of U.S. state rule finds a reference here. Even Franklin Roosevelt (internment of Japanese citizens) and Robert Kennedy (greenlights to FBI spying and bugging without cause, including of M.L. King) are flagged. As for Bill Clinton, he led genocide of Iraqi’s social state, attack on social security at home, and refused to ratify the International War Crimes Court…

…Yet the economic level of the U.S. police state remains in the shadows. From the start, the founding of the U.S. was on the basis of protecting private wealth and its accumulation with no common life interest defined. It allowed the limitless seizure of Indian people’s lands and territories West of the Appalachians which George III had forbidden, and extended the unregulated rights of the private money power so fast and far that Thomas Jefferson himself warned that “banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The [money and credit] issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it belongs”. Over 230 years later, the problem is clearer as U.S. state rule by force and dictate becomes a visible dead-end. But as to whether the Wall-Street money power behind the state that predates the world is brought under control is a question not posed in this study. So far the first step solution of public-bank utilities and non-profit loans to government has been silenced wherever it is raised.

Full article link:

China Telecom rejects media report of Internet traffic “hijacking” [People’s Daily]

Posted in Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Black propaganda, China, China-bashing, Internet Global Hegemony, Media smear campaign, Red Scare, Sinophobia, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War on November 22, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

November 18, 2010

China Telecom, a major wireless service provider in the country, on Thursday denied U.S. allegations that its servers had “hijacked” Internet traffic.

“China Telecom has never done such an act,” said Wang Yongzhen, a senior press official with the company, in response to foreign media citing a document released by a U.S. Congressional advisory group and alleging that his company had rerouted Internet traffic on websites including that of the U.S. military through its servers for 18 minutes on April 8 this year.

“These reports by foreign media are completely groundless,” Wang retorted, adding his company has always abided by and strictly followed relevant international regulations and standards for Internet operations.

Source: Xinhua

Article link:

“Global Bonapartism” – the Toronto G20 and China [counterpunch]

Posted in Anti-China propaganda exposure, China, China-US relations, Economy, G20, Hu Jintao, Labor, Obama, Red Scare, Toronto June 2010, USA, Yuan appreciation on June 26, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

June 21, 2010

by Vijay Prahaad

A superb short history of the G7/G8/G20 as the Toronto confab looms in all its lavishly-funded police-state questionability.  The diktat expected to be hammered home (by the EU bloc leaders at least) is “AUSTERITY”.  This article has been excerpted to highlight the parts about China at the G20. – 左手

“…Obama is to blame China. That is now an established art in Washington…”

When the Finance Ministers of the Advanced States set up the G7 in 1974-75, their tongues quivered with the taste of centuries of power…The Third World had threatened the established order with its demand for a New International Economic Order (1973), but that would quickly be dispatched through financial trickery, one that led directly to the massive debt crisis of the 1980s and the inflation of the power of Wall Street, the City of London and the Frankfurt Finanzplatz.  No rivals stood in the way of the G7.  The European and Japanese Ministers happily bound their economies into dollar seigniorage, with the euro and the yen now secondary currencies in the world of international settlements.  The United States was the leading edge.  Its wingmen stood around:  Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom.  Everyone beamed.  The future was theirs.

Like Achilles, the G7 not only killed its Hector, the hopes of the rest of the planet, but it now tied the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America behind its chariot and dragged it across the battlefield.  Structural adjustment conditionalities, aerial bombardment:  this was the loot and pillage of the era that opened up in 1975.

In late June, the G7 (with Russia, the G8) will meet in Toronto, Canada.  This is its 33rd official gathering; it might be its final one.  Alongside the G8, Canada will also host the G20. The G20 was formed in 1999 at the initiative of the “locomotives of the South,” the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), South Africa (who joins them in another iteration, the IBSA — India, Brazil and South Africa) and Mexico.  A smart fellow at Goldman Sachs coined the acronym BRIC, but it has stuck, and it means more than that quaint sounding term from the 1990s, “emerging economies.”  The G20 began as a “mechanism for informal dialogue.”  Circumstances favored a greater role:  the global financial crisis from 2008 onward opened the door.  The “advanced” economies turned for consideration to their creditors among the BRIC states.  This moment of crisis pushed the G20 to ask for more than an informal status.  At the 2009 G20 Summit in Pittsburg, the eminences pledged, “Today, we designated the G20 as the premier forum for our international economic cooperation.”

Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom are the least pleased with the demise of the G8, since this has been their major platform to assert their otherwise declined global presence (this applies in particular to Japan, which has seen its influence decline relative to the rise of China’s authority).  Because of these powers, the G8 might continue to meet, but it will not be able to act as the executive committee of the G20.  The others might not allow that.  They can see the benefit of having China in the room, and India and Brazil.  Keep your friends close, is the theory, but your enemies closer.  [That works both ways, doesn’t it…  – 左手]

The Road to the High Table

Since the 1950s, it has been the effort of the Atlantic states to squash the march of political progress in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  Independent political action was frowned upon.  The Dulles brothers felt that all this talk of “non-alignment” was simply a Trojan Horse for Bolshevism.  John Foster Dulles shared bugbears with Winston Churchill. Both were obsessed with Communism, what Dulles called “godless terrorism.”  One can imagine John Foster chuckling as Churchill says, “The failure to strangle Bolshevism at its birth and to bring Russia, then prostrate, by one means or another, into the general democratic system, lies heavy upon us today” (1949).  If Russia finally entered the G7, and, despite its occasional bouts of independent thinking, went along with the Atlantic powers, the countries of the Third World project were less pliable.  Even when they give themselves over to the broad outlines of the Atlantic project, they still do things that are unacceptable:  as when Turkey and Brazil cut the deal with Iran on nuclear fuel…

…[An] important demand has been for democracy in the IMF and the World Bank, two institutions that are dominated by the Europeans and the United States.  As the country with vast surpluses, China has made the loudest noises, in the most genial way, for greater voting power in the IMF.  At the Pittsburg meeting of the G20 in 2009, the powers gave the nod to open up the vote share in the IMF (the United States has the largest block of votes, 17 per cent, while China now has the sixth largest, with 3.7 per cent)…

Capitalist Revisionism

…The G20 met in Pittsburg when it appeared possible that global capitalism might implode.  Talk of global Keynesianism was in the air, and it looked like neo-liberalism was on its knees.  The final communiqué from Pittsburg did not disguise its true intentions, which was to use the stimulus to get over the slump and then return to business as usual.  “We will avoid any premature withdrawal of surplus,” the eminences wrote, “at the same time, we will prepare our exit strategies and, when the time is right, withdraw our extraordinary policy support in a cooperative and coordinated way, maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility.”  There is nothing here to indicate a fundamental course correction…

The finance ministers of the G20, called the sherpas, met in Busan, South Korea earlier this month to create the agenda and draft documents for the G20 summit…They told the press that it was time for austerity.

The Greek financial meltdown provided the lesson.  That Goldman Sachs had colluded with the Greek ruling elite to enable and mask its debt was not the issue.  The lesson from the Greek debacle was that European countries had to hastily bring down their deficits.  These deficits had to now be paid for not by higher taxes on the rich (or even more effective tax collection on extant rates), but by cuts in government social spending and on effective taxations of all kinds on the working-class.  The consumption of the elite could not be touched, but the consumption of the poor, low as it is, is going to be curtailed.  The newly elected Conservatives in the UK hastened to slash government spending, with the Conservative leader, David Cameron, telling his fellows to change their “whole way of life…”

…[As for the US,] Obama is to blame China.  That is now an established art in Washington.  The current theme is to demand that China devalue its currency, and thereby administer a reduction of its surplus dollars.  There is a demand that the Chinese government needs to push polices that increase domestic consumption and reduce its domestic saving rate.  The Chinese need to be made into consumers.  They are too thrifty.  Currently the personal consumption of the vast Chinese population is only 16 per cent of that of the U. S. population.  If the Chinese were to become America, imagine the ecological stress.  The champion of “green capitalism” has not thought that through.

To forestall U. S. criticism, the Chinese have loosed the yuan’s peg to the dollar.  It will not do what Washington wants, but it will allow Hu [Jintao] to claim he has done what he can and yet do little.  Beijing promised as much in April, before Hu’s visit to Washington.  Little came of it.  The Chinese are equally unprepared to slow down on the stimulus – at $585 billion, it allowed the Chinese economy to grow by 8.7 per cent last year…the leadership has looked the other way during strike action against some of the export-processing firms.  Hu has his own problems.  He won’t be Obama’s sherpa.

At Toronto, the main card will be Obama v. [Germany’s] Merkel…

[emphases mine]

Full article here

Red Dawn is being remade, but China ousts Russia as America’s new enemy []

Posted in "Red Dawn" protest, Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, China, China-US relations, Film, Red Scare, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Yellow Peril myth on June 24, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

A remake of the 1984 cold war teen action film says much about America’s fear of its declining influence in the world

“…The hunt for Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was named Operation Red Dawn in tribute to the movie…” 

Just when you thought you couldn’t hate the invasion of Iraq or the original Red Dawn movie and its pernicious influence more…-  左手

Paul Harris

May 30 2010

The film was a…piece of 1980s teen cinema framed against the paranoid geopolitics of the cold war.  Red Dawn starred Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen as all-American teens leading an armed resistance movement against Soviet troops who had invaded the US.

Feeding on Hollywood’s recent appetite for recycling old films, Red Dawn is being remade…  But there is one vital difference:  this time the invading communist army that takes over America is Chinese.

The new-look enemy reflects the changes that have swept the world since the fall of the Berlin Wall.  First, the Soviet Union no longer exists, thus hampering any plot driven by its invasion of America.  Second, a rich vein of paranoia about the rise of Chinese economic might now runs through American politics…

Full article here

Red Dawn remake: “American movie demonizes China” [People’s Daily]

Posted in "Red Dawn" protest, Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, Red Scare, Sinophobia on June 2, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手


June 2, 2010 

The armed People's Liberation Army (PLA) in the movie. (Who look uncannily Korean - 左手)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), an American media company, is re-making the movie “Red Dawn,” a film from 1984, reported the Global Times on May 31.

The main plot of the film revolves around a future where the United States has fallen into a deep financial crisis. The Chinese armed forces invade in the name of helping the country to repair its economy and are finally defeated by a group of American teenagers. Because the entire film is full of dialogue about killing the Chinese as well as scenes smearing China’s image, many Chinese people are very angry.

According to sources, the film has many scenes that demonize China.  For instance, the armed People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and armored vehicles are seen patrolling streets in the United States.  PLA soldiers armed with AK-47 rifles and wearing Chinese national flag armbands are seen posting political posters everywhere.  PLA flags are seen flying over towns and banners and slogans are hanging on both sides of the streets.  In addition, the PLA emblems are also printed on strip-shaped Nazi flags, implying that the PLA are [Nazis / fascist]. 

The PLA "Nazi" banners in Red Dawn -- this is so not PLA style!!

U.S.-based commented on May 27 that…MGM said Red Dawn is simply an action film and does not mean to advocate the idea of demonizing Chinese.  Nevertheless, public opinion believes that the film to some degree indeed reflects the…hostile attitudes held by some American people toward China and this is a very dangerous trend.

By People’s Daily Online  

"Chinese US-occupation propaganda posters" in this image from the "Red Dawn" remake

Overseas Chinese protest against the movie (possibly in New York City)

Article link here 

“Red Dawn” Remade: China is Coming for Our Children [The Awl]

Posted in "Red Dawn" protest, Anti-China media bias, Anti-China propaganda exposure, China, China-US relations, DPR Korea, Film, Red Scare, Sinophobia, US imperialism on June 2, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Article link:

UPDATE IV, APRIL 12, 2012 The filmmakers realized they had a toxic product on their hands and are digitally altering the film to change the invading villains from Chinese to [“North”] Korean. This is true news, and makes the project a full-fledged laughing stock — about as pathetic as it gets in the already sordid world of Hollywood entertainment.

Also, due to technical issues, the text below has developed many, many glitches. Until such time that I can edit it, please just refer to the original “Awl” article linked at the top of this post. – Zuo Shou

<UPDATE III, NOVEMBER 30, 2010 The film’s originally-slated release date came and went with nothing. Apparently MGM’s bankruptcy has caused the film release to be indefinitely suspended. Parallels may be drawn to MGM studio’s moral and artistic bankruptcy for producing such a sickeningly premised flick… Zuo Shou

Readers:  this article as posted on the blog got messed up with a lot garble.  After the break below, it becomes fairly unreadable.  I just want to point to the link at the top of this post, if you want to see the original “Awl” article.  – ZS

Continue reading